Again, I really cannot emphasise enough how BIG a thing that is, BUT anyone who at least understands the core concept of the Scriptures would not be surprised, as equally while you lot have taken the “piss” about him for so long, it is fair to assume that something major diplomacy - wise started at the recent visit by Trump to Saudi.
Now, IF ONLY you lot stopped worrying about offending a few extremists and started taking care of the feelings of the majority of British Citizens of ALL Faiths and started cracking down on and arresting those with warped and extremist interpretations (of all religions or Political positions) (ie read that Tweet about certain Mosques in the UK from a few pages back)
And enough of this moronic bollocks that led you to encourage Freedom Fighters to impose your version of democracy in Libya etc then expecting them to go sit and watch Sunday Village Cricket with a Pint and a Cream Tea - THAT must never be allowed to happen again and anyone who went to Libya (or Tunisia) should not be allowed back in.
The liberals would cry and so would the poor suffering families of the religious fanatics, lawyers would love it mind, this is one instance where we need to look at in law what we can do.
So what is being suggested? Internment without trial? Arrest without any evidence? Based on hearsay and supposition? There are people with all sorts of warped and unpleasant views in the world - do we arrest them as well? Simply because of what they think?
I would then add that any official asylum immigrant be barred from preaching many of the hate preachers were expelled from their own countries for hate. Simply cannot understand why you give them a platform
I guess we could start with locking up half of TSW for starters. Where do you draw the line? Should football supporters be locked up for singing songs about the Munich crash or making gas sounds at Spurs? I have recently seen some dreadful posts on social media that easily can be termed as hate mail.
Is that the reason? Really? Can you point to any incidents where this has been the case? It could just be icompetence, or not taking the issue seriously. Or maybe they don’t have any/enough evidence.
If there is evidence that they are inciting racial hatred I would expect the authorities to act.
Offensive and extremist literature? If it can be defined as such within the bounds of the law (and isn’t just offiensive to some people) then, again, I’d expect the authorities to act.
For the sake of being contrary, what do they do in other Muslim nations they hold so dear? How are their human and religious rights? If they fight for them and don’t recognize our laws, should we try them under the ones they want to live under?
Authorities won’t act because they can’t. The security services stepped in whenever the police were about to try and prosecute. I have posted articles that confirm this.
“The security services repeatedly prevented Scotland Yard from pursuing criminal investigations against hate preacher Anjem Choudary… Met counter-terror officers often felt they had enough evidence to build a case against the radicalising cleric, only to be told to hang fire by MI5, because he was crucial to one of their on-going investigations.”
“I am gobsmacked that we allowed him to carry on as long as long as he did. He was up to his neck in it but the police can’t do full investigations on people if the security service say they are working on a really big job, because they have the priority. That is what they did constantly. While the police might have had lots of evidence they were pulled back by the security service because he [Choudary] was one of the people they were monitoring. It was very frustrating and did cause some tension but we were told we had to consider the bigger picture.”
Mark Curtis and Nafeez Ahmed(among others) have investigated our connections with terrorists and put some damming articles out. The problem starts with the security services and goes all the way up to the top.
We used to get someone come round door to door selling Christmas cards that people had painted with their feet. Not sure if they were Muslims. Probably not.
“To criticize a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous, but to criticize their religion, that is a right. That is a freedom. The freedom to criticize ideas, any ideas - even if they are sincerely held beliefs - is one of the fundamental freedoms of society. A law which attempts to say you can criticize and ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed.